|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 638 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 884
... ...
... ... ..... n ₹ 100 Less Deduction u/s 80IA at 30% ₹ 30 Deduction u/s 80HHC at 50% of ₹ 100-₹ 30 ₹ 35 Net taxable income ₹ 35 Thus, it is clear from the above working laid down by the Special Bench that the deduction allowable under S.80HHC of the Act from the export profit is at a lower figure, by computing this deduction after reducing the deduction allowed under S.80IA of the Act. The Special Bench ruling relied on the specific provisions of S.80IA 9 of the Act. Accordingly, we feel it proper to restore this matter to the file of the assessing officer for ascertaining the fact whether he had worked out the deduction under S. 80HHC of the Act in line with the working shown in 'B' above and as per the ruling of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Mint (supra). We direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the Court on 30- 6-2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 883
... ...
... ... ..... o as to dispose them of on substantive basis also.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. The ld. D.R. before us although relied on the documents referred to in annexure-A which were seized during the course of search at the premises of Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta, the CIT(A) has given finding that these documents were seized during the course of survey under section 133A. The A.O. has taken the action under section 153C on the basis of documents impounded during the course of survey under section 133A not on the basis of the material found during the course of search taken place at the premises of Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta. Under these facts, we do agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that the A.O. does not have any jurisdiction under section 153 to make assessment on the assessee. We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A) 4. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2010).
-
2010 (6) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee, we have considered the orders of the authorities below and the submissions of the ld. Representatives of the parties. We observe that on perusal of pages 16 to 29 of the paper book, the copies of the vouchers on account of payment of brokerage paid to five different persons aggregating to ₹ 30,000/-, none of the payment is made to an individual which is below ₹ 2,500/-. Further in the said voucher it is mentioned that payment is on account of brokerage. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR conceded that no TDS was deducted by the assessee as per provision of section 194H of the Act. Therefore, we held that the authorities below have rightly disallowed the said claim of the assessee as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence we uphold the orders of the authorities below by rejecting ground no.11 of the appeal. 14. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt.25.06.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 881
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 14,40,720/- from the operations of mark-to-market valuations in derivative trading. The AO disallowed on the ground that it is merely provision. 17. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance for the same reasons as extracted in the case of M/s Subhkam Stocks and Shares Ltd in ITA No 1941/M/09 supra. 18. Aggrieved, Assessee is on appeal before us. 19. For the reasons stated in our order in ITA No. 1941/M/09 in the case of M/s Subhkam Stocks and Shares Ltd, (supra), we hold that the loss claimed by the assessee on a mark to market basis on the stock index future of ₹ 14,40,720/-, on the basis of actual settlement of losses on future contracts based on the price differential of the futures on a day today basis, which is net off any profits earned during this period on the computation of the differential pricing, is an accrued loss and is allowable . 20. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 25th day of June, 2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 880
... ...
... ... ..... comments on this issue. We find that it is not the case of the revenue that cash in hand was utilised by the assessee for non business purposes or cash in hand was kept for any purpose other than the business consideration by the assessee. In our considered opinion, how much cash should be maintained by a businessman is the prerogative of the businessman and the Learned Assessing Officer cannot lay down any guidelines in this regard. A businessman may make an imprudent decision but that by itself does not entitle the Assessing Authority to not to allow deduction for expenses incurred out of commercial expediency. Thus, we find that the addition of ₹ 33,000/- was made on a wrong footing and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the same. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 18th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... s been sought to be fostered by way of a gratuitous disbursement and hence, the reasoning enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builders Limited (supra) does not help the case of the assessee…….”. 13. We find that the assessee has failed to establish its case of commercial expediency. That in the circumstances where interest bearing borrowed loans have been advanced for non business purposes, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries (Supra) is applicable. Accordingly, we uphold the disallowance of ₹ 14,82,695/- being interest attributable to the interest free advances made by the assessee to its sister concern out of interest bearing borrowed funds. The order of the CIT(A) is upheld. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 878
... ...
... ... ..... accounts with the foreign currencies and Indian currencies, which were in his possession. In fact, the penalty was not imposed by the authorities not on the reasoning of failure to issue the encashment certificate. In other words, I find that the respondent has come to a conclusion that 'in the absence of encashment certificates, the explanation given by the appellant for tallying the accounts in respect of the foreign currencies and Indian currencies, which was recovered from his possession, cannot be accepted'. Therefore, I am of the view that the contention of the appellant that when the show cause notice was issued for violation of sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the FERA Act, the punishment cannot be imposed under a different reasoning, cannot be accepted and I find that no case has been made out by the appellant to interfere with the penalty imposed in the impugned order passed by the respondent. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 877
... ...
... ... ..... n the financial year ended 31.03.2007, it cannot be said that the project was complete earlier. The assessee’s contention that the revised Accounting Standard-7 is applicable for construction contracts as clarified by the Expert Committee of the ICAI is correct. The assessee has constructed the building all by itself and cannot be said to be in the business of taking up and executing construction contracts. The business of the assessee is to build and develop its own projects all by itself. 14. In the above circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). There is no scope for applying the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Champion Construction Co. vs. ITO (supra) in the light of the aforesaid facts obtaining in the assessee’s case. We accordingly confirm the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue with no order as to costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th June 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 876
... ...
... ... ..... the AO to adjudicate the same in the light of the earlier decisions. 15. With respect to provisions written back for sundries ₹ 84,28,260/-, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows “In this respect, it was submitted by the appellant company in the course of appellate proceedings that provision in respect of the same was made in the earlier year(s) and the same was allowed as deduction in the year(s) of making the provisions. Accordingly, the same should not be excluded again from income. It was also submitted that in the Appellant company’s own case, I have accepted its identical contention in my order for A.Y. 2003-04. Accordingly, this plea of the appellant company is allowed.” 16. We remit back the issue to the file of the AO to adjudicate the same in the light of the decision in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of June, 2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA No.361/Hyd/03 for the assessment year 1998-99. Decision of the Calcutta High court in the case of CIT vs. A.S.Wardekar reported in 283 ITR 432 have also decided the similar issue observing that amount received for agreeing not to engage in competitive business is a capital receipt. Even the insertion of sub-section (va) to section 28 of Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 2002 is effective from 1-4-2003 which brings non compete fees with in the purview of section 28 to make it taxable in the hands of the recipient of such income. Hence the same is not applicable in the assessee's case as the assessment year under consideration is 2002-03. In view of the above, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above. Order was pronounced in the Court on 25-6-2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... gly, we dismiss the appeal as not admitted by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT(223 ITR 480(MP) and by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt Ltd (38 ITD 320 (Del). 4. In the case of CIT vs. B N Bhattachargee & Another, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), their Lordships of Supreme Court at Page 477-78 has held that the appeal does not merely mean filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. We therefore, constrained to presume that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal. 5 In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced on the 11th, day of June 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... st between the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the defendant No. 4. In issuing this clarificatory direction, I am restating what Punjab and Haryana High Court held in para 2 of its decision in the case of Kartar Singh v. Thakur Singh and Ors. reported in 2002 A.I.H.C. 3683. The said paragraph is extracted hereinbelow 2. After hearing the learned Counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Act and the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel. The Civil Judge is conscious of the fact that cross-examination is to be allowed only to the extent of clash of interest of the co-defendant. It has also been taken care of that if at later stage the Court finds the defendants were colluding, the same would be appreciated by the Court at the appropriate stage. 10. Both the petitions are allowed to the extent indicated in paragraph No. 9 hereinabove. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... n. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides, material on record and the orders of the authorities below. 7. It is noted that the assessee has received gifts of two Resurgent India Bonds from an NRI and such bonds are transferable by way of gifts only once and that to a resident Indian as per the scheme of Resurgent India Bonds, the immunity from taxation in the hands of the donee is also available. We also find that the relevant documentary evidences have been filed, so as to establish the fact of genuineness gift. We are further of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanchan Singh vs. CIT (supra) strongly supports the case of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in all the grounds raised by the Revenue. Therefore, the same are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 871
Maintainability of appeal - pre-deposit - Modification of Stay Order - Valuation - Held that:- This very same argument had been raised during the hearing of the stay petition and has been considered in para 2 of the stay order. The applicants are now seeking to reargue the application which is not permissible in law - modification of stay order declined - appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2010 (6) TMI 870
... ...
... ... ..... td. from whom share application money was received, thus there is no reason to say that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT (2008) 13 DTR (Del) 204 (2009) 308 ITR 22(Del) held that if the assessee has disclosed truly and fully all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment, an action under s. 147 cannot be taken after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year on the basis of mere change of opinion of the AO that a large sum ought to have been disallowed in original assessment. 12. In view of the above, agreeing with the learned Authorised Representative Shri Ved Jain that on the facts of the case the legal issue is squarely covered by the proviso to s. 147, we are inclined to reverse the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal in favour of the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 869
... ...
... ... ..... a fide belief based on the provisions of law and letters exchanged with the department. The correspondence exchanged by the respondent-assessee was placed before us. We are satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are based on material available on record. No perversity could be demonstrated during the course of hearing. In the circumstance, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Appeal is, thus, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 868
... ...
... ... ..... apparent from the reading of the company petition that the same is barred by limitation the petition cannot be rejected under O. VII Rule 11(d) CPC. After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the company petition. I am of the opinion that the present company petition cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation as a preliminary issue. Till 14.05.2008 when the petitioner himself ascertained the status of issuing duplicate shares to him, the petitioner was not even aware of the transfer of shares to R-3. 17. In view of the foregoing, the R-1 company is hereby directed to rectify the Register of Members by substituting the name of the petitioner in place of R-3 in respect of the distinctive 100 shares and issue duplicate shares or in the alternative make the requisite number of shares available to the petitioner by allotting the same after purchasing the same from the open market. 18. C.P. No. 10/111A/2008-CLB(ND) is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost.
-
2010 (6) TMI 867
Public Service Commission - advertisement inviting applications for 35 posts - stipulation that vacancies may be increased or decreased - reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal reservation in favour of handicapped, and women etc - belonging to Uttaranchal - Facts of the case, The HC accepted the first submission of respondent No.1 after examining the record of selection and came to the conclusion that last selected woman candidate who was given benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in general category. Thus, the said candidate ought to have been appointed against the general category vacancy and respondent No.1 ought to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women. Hence, these appeals.
HELD THAT:- Following the decision in case of the Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. RPS & Ors.[2007 (7) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] held that Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. In view of this, it is evident that the judgment and order of the High Court is not in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria. The judgment and order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and all consequential orders become unenforceable and inconsequential.
Thus, appeals succeed and are allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition is hereby set aside. No costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 866
... ...
... ... ..... g but abuse of process of court. Perusal of verification statement shows, particularly para 2 that the word 'all' accused persons has been inserted subsequently in different ink and hand writing in Marathi and that appears to have been done with a view to involve all other petitioners 2 to 6. The proposition canvassed by Mr. Gandhi that in case of matrimonial offence the courts should be liberal, cannot be accepted in generality and it is the duty of this Court to interfere and quash the process when there is abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I clearly find that respondent No. 2 is not bona fidely prosecuting petitioners 2 to 6 in private complaint case. I, therefore, hold that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation and cold not have been entertained by the Magistrate. In the result, I make the following order. 12. Criminal Writ Petition No. 431 of 2009 is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (1).
-
2010 (6) TMI 865
... ...
... ... ..... . Appln. No. 176 of 2005 dated 11/05/2005, Arvind Clothing Limited. (v) Co. Appln. No. 411 of 2005 dated 16/12/2005, Dinesh Platechem Limited. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not necessary for the Holding Company to take out separate proceedings for amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries. 6. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant. 7. Having gone through the aforesaid decisions as well as the order passed by this Court in Company Application No. 619/2006 as well as the scheme of amalgamation, and in light of various judgements referred to hereinabove, holding that separate proceedings are not necessary for the transferee Company being the holding Company, it is held in the present case also that separate proceedings, as required to be taken out under the provisions of Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, are not required to be undertaken by the applicant Company. This application is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
........
|
